MIG wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:





On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.
Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

Which you now know was not the case.


Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.

Indeed, so they would not be affected then would they.

If you answered the consultation as a self-appointed spokesman for
others then your comments would rightly be ignored. Consultations do not
work like that.

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism.

Populisms - sound a bit like soundbites. The tube is a massively
expensive network that should be used to it full - the minority being
well catered for too.

Okay you have some problem with the tube being run later, it does not
affect you, you respond to consultations when it does not affect you and
you reinvent history. Why?